Justice Samuel Alito’s Fossil-Fuel Interests Face Scrutiny Ahead of Suncor Case

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is set to hear oral arguments in *Suncor v. Boulder* on October 5. The petition, brought by Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil, asks whether state and municipal governments may sue fossil-fuel producers for climate-related harms. Alito has refused to recuse himself, despite holding extensive interests in the oil and gas sector.

The Guardian

Financial disclosures filed with the federal government show Alito’s reported assets (excluding his home) rose from roughly $1.1 million in 2005 to a range of $3.4 million–$8.4 million by 2024. His 2025 disclosure, due May 15, has not yet been submitted. The justice has previously recused himself from environmental cases where he owned stock in a directly-involved company, but the court’s May statement to NBC News indicated recusal was not required for the Suncor case because his holdings do not include Suncor or ExxonMobil.

The Guardian

• Court Accountability estimates Alito earned $390,000–$2.9 million from oil and gas holdings between 2005 and 2024.

The Guardian

• Rental-income windfalls from a Grady County, Oklahoma property generated $100,000–$1 million in both 2019 and 2022.

The Guardian

• The same property was reported at $100,000–$250,000, though a neighboring plot sold for $800,000 in 2017.

The Guardian

• An inheritance of ExxonMobil stock was valued at $100,000–$250,000; Alito later sold the shares.

The Guardian

• Alito’s portfolio includes stakes in more than a dozen oil firms, such as ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Kinder Morgan.

The Guardian

A Supreme Court spokesperson told NBC News that Alito is not obligated to step aside because his disclosed holdings do not directly involve Suncor or ExxonMobil. Alito has defended a 2008 private-jet ride paid for by Elliott Investment Management, arguing that ethics rules did not require disclosure. Advocacy group Court Accountability and other watchdogs have urged a Senate investigation and called for Alito’s recusal, citing the breadth of his fossil-fuel investments.

The Guardian

• “It’s reasonable to assume that means the value of the Alito property would have increased to around $800,000,” — Though Graves, co-founder of Court Accountability

The Guardian

• “It raises concerns because you have a sitting justice who is hoping to get richer based on oil exploration of this land,” — Graves. Singer’s Elliott Investment

The Guardian

• “But my view is that you shouldn’t be able to sell a stock just so you can sit on a case, even though that company’s profits have benefited you,” — Though Graves, co-founder of Court Accountability

The Guardian

• “A reasonable person would think if you’re invested in the industry that could benefit from the outcome of a lawsuit, then you could personally stand to benefit from the outcome, even if you don’t hold the stock in the specific company that happens to be the named plaintiff,” — Graves. Alito’s

The Guardian